Page 1 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Criminal Appeal No.1223 of 2013

{Arising out of judgment dated 30-10-2013 in Special (Atrocities)

Sessions Trial No.7/2013 of the Special Judge (Atrocities), North Bastar

Kanker}

Mannu Ram Goti, S/o Shekhu Ram Goti, aged about 24 years,

Occupation Assistant Teacher, Jhaliyamali Ashram, R/o Kurubhat, Out

Post Halba, Police Station Narharpur, Civil and Revenue District North

Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

(In Jail)

---- Appellant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, North Bastar Kanker /

Station House Officer, Police Station Narharpur, District North Bastar

Kanker (C.G.)

---- Respondent

Criminal Appeal No.467 of 2015

Deenanath Nagesh (Ashram Chowkidar), S/o Ramprasad Nagesh, aged

about 35 years, R/o Village Jhaliyamari, Police Station Narharpur, District

North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

(In Jail)

---- Appellant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station

Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

---- Respondent

Criminal Appeal No.1237 of 2013

Smt. Bhabhita @ Babita Markam, aged about 29 years, W/o Vijay

Markam, D/o Rajjilal, Ashram Superintendent, R/o Village Jhaliyamari,

P.S. Narharpur, Civil and Revenue District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

(In Jail)

---- Appellant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Uttar Bastar Kanker,

(P.S. Narharpur), District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

---- Respondent 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 2 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

Criminal Appeal No.1115 of 2013

1.Sagar Katlam, Aged about 29 years, S/o Ramlal Katlam, Teacher,

R/o Village Jhaliyamari, P.S. Narharpur, Civil and Revenue District

Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

2.Sughan Singh Naverji, Aged about 61 years, S/o Shobhit Singh

Naverji, Block Education Officer, R/o Narharpur, P.S. Narharpur,

Civil and Revenue District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

3.Jitendra Kumar Nayak, Aged 54 years, S/o Devkaran Nayak,

Assistant Block Education Officer, R/o Bhiroud, P.S. Narharpur,

Civil and Revenue District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

---- Appellants

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Uttar Bastar

Kanker, (P.S. Narharpur), District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

---- Respondent

Criminal Appeal No.1144 of 2013

Sukalu Netam, S/o Surjuram, aged about 40 years, Sarpanch, R/o

Jhaliyamari, Police Station Narharpur, Civil and Revenue District North

Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

---- Appellant

Versus

The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police

Station Narharpur, Civil and Revenue District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

---- Respondent

AND

Criminal Appeal No.1175 of 2013

Lachchhuram Salam, S/o Shri Masiyaram Salam, Aged about 40 years,

R/o Jhaliyamari, Police Station Narharpur, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker

(C.G.)

---- Appellant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, Uttar Bastar

Kanker, (Police Station Narharpur), Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

---- Respondent 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 3 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellant in Cr.A.No.1223/2013: -

Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Appellants in Cr.A.Nos.467/2015 & Cr.A.No.1144/2013 : -

Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate.

For Appellant in Cr.A.No.1237/2013 and Appellants No.1 & 3 in Cr.A.

No.1115/2013: -

Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Appellant No.2 in Cr.A.No.1115/2013: -

Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate.

For Appellant in Cr.A.No.1175/2013: -

Mr. Arvind Sinha, Advocate.

For State / Respondent in all appeals: -

Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Govt. Advocate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Singh Chandel, JJ.

Judgment On Board

(05/05/2023)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1.Since all the six criminal appeals have arisen out of one and same

impugned judgment dated 30-10-2013 passed by the Special Judge

(Atrocities), North Bastar Kanker in Special (Atrocities) Sessions

Trial No.7/2013 and since common question of fact and law is

involved in all the six appeals, they have been clubbed together,

heard together and are being disposed of by this common

judgment.

2.These six criminal appeals have been preferred by the accused /

appellants (A-1 to A-8) under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against

the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing them as under: -

Mannuram Goti (A-1)

Conviction Sentence

Section 450 of the IPC RI for ten years and fine of ₹ 500/-, in

default, additional RI for two months 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 4 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

Section 376(2)(g) read

with clauses (b), (c), (f)

read with Section 120B

of the IPC for

committing offence

against victims No.1 to

12 & 15

Imprisonment for life and fine of ₹ 500/-,

in default, additional SI for two months

(12 times)

Section 354 of the IPC

for committing offence

against victims No.13 &

14

RI for three years and fine of ₹ 200/-, in

default, additional SI for one month

(two times)

Section 119 of the IPCRI for five years

Section 201 of the IPCRI for three years and fine of ₹ 500/-, in

default, additional SI for two months

Except sentences under Sections 119 &

201 of the IPC, other remaining

sentences were directed to run

consecutively

Deenanath Nagesh (A-2)

Conviction Sentence

Section 450 of the IPC RI for ten years and fine of ₹ 500/-, in

default, additional SI for two months

Section 376(2)(g) read

with clauses (b), (c), (f)

read with Section 120B

of the IPC for

committing offence

against victims No.2 to

5, 7, 9 & 10

Imprisonment for life and fine of ₹ 500/-,

in default, additional SI for two months

(7 times)

Section 354 of the IPC

for committing offence

against victims No.13 &

14

RI for three years and fine of ₹ 200/-, in

default, additional SI for one month

(two times)

Section 119 of the IPCRI for five years

Section 201 of the IPCRI for three years and fine of ₹ 500/-, in

default, additional SI for two months

Except sentences under Sections 119 &

201 of the IPC, other remaining

sentences were directed to run

consecutively 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 5 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

Babita Markam (A-3)

Conviction Sentence

Section 376(2)(b) read

with clauses (c), (f), (g)

read with Sections 34 &

35 read with Section

120B of the IPC

Imprisonment for life and fine of ₹ 500/-,

in default, additional SI for two months

Section 119 of the IPCRI for five years and fine of ₹ 500/-, in

default, additional SI for two months

Section 201 of the IPCRI for three years and fine of ₹ 500/-, in

default, additional SI for two months

Section 506 of the IPCRI for one year

Except sentences under Sections 119 &

201 of the IPC, other remaining

sentences were directed to run

consecutively

Sagar Katlam (A-4)

Conviction Sentence

Section 201 of the IPCRI for three years and fine of ₹ 500/-, in

default, additional SI for two months

Section 202 of the IPCRI for six months

Section 506 of the IPC RI for one year

Sentences were directed to run

consecutively

Sukalu Netam (A-5)

Conviction Sentence

Section 201 of the IPCRI for three years and fine of ₹ 500/-, in

default, additional SI for two months

Section 384 read with

Section 506 of the IPC

RI for two years

Sentences were directed to run

consecutively 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 6 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

Lachhuram Salam (A-6)

Conviction Sentence

Section 201 of the IPCRI for three years and fine of ₹ 500/-, in

default, additional SI for two months

Section 384 read with

Section 506 of the IPC

RI for two years

Sentences were directed to run

consecutively

Sughan Singh Naverji (A-7)

Conviction Sentence

Section 119 of the IPCRI for five years and fine of ₹ 500/-, in

default, additional SI for two months

Section 201 of the IPCRI for three years and fine of ₹ 500/-, in

default, additional SI for two months

Section 202 of the IPCRI for six months

Section 384 of the IPC RI for two years

Except sentence under Section 384 of

the IPC, other remaining sentences

were directed to run consecutively

Jitendra Nayak (A- 8 )

Conviction Sentence

Section 119 of the IPCRI for five years and fine of ₹ 500/-, in

default, additional SI for two months

Section 201 of the IPCRI for three years and fine of ₹ 500/-, in

default, additional SI for two months

Section 202 of the IPCRI for six months

Section 384 of the IPC RI for two years

Except sentence under Section 384 of

the IPC, other remaining sentences

were directed to run consecutively 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 7 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

3.Sole appellant in Cr.A.No.1223/2013 namely Mannuram Goti (A-1);

sole appellant in Cr.A.No.467/2015 namely Deenanath Nagesh (A-

2); sole appellant in Cr.A.No.1237/2013 namely Smt. Bhabhita @

Babita Markam (A-3); three appellants in Cr.A.No.1115/2013

namely Sagar Katlam (A-4), Sughan Singh Naverji (A-7) & Jitendra

Kumar Nayak (A-8); sole appellant in Cr.A.No.1144/2013 namely

Sukalu Netam (A-5); and sole appellant in Cr.A.No.1175/2013

namely Lachhuram Salam (A-6) have assailed their conviction and

sentences imposed upon them by the learned Special Judge

(Atrocities) by way of the impugned judgment of conviction & order

of sentence.

4.Case of the prosecution, in short, is that 1½ years prior to 12-8-

2012, accused / appellant Mannuram Goti (A-1) being Teacher and

accused / appellant Deenanath Nagesh (A-2) being Security Guard

in Adivasi Kanya Ashram, Jhaliyamari committed gang rape /

sexual intercourse with 14 minor girls aged about 7-11 years and

called meeting of Gram Panchayat Manikpur and tried to conceal

the evidence and thereby committed the offence. Further case of

the prosecution is that accused / appellant Babita Markam (A-3)

being Superintendent of the said Ashram, being a public servant,

was in position to prevent the commission of offence, but did not

prevent the commission of offence and thereby committed the

offence under Section 376(2)(b) read with clauses (c), (f), (g) read

with Sections 34 & 35 read with Section 120B of the IPC and other

related offences. Similarly, accused / appellant Sagar Katlam (A-4)

being Teacher, accused / appellant Sukalu Netam (A-5) being Up- 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 8 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

Sarpanch of Village Jhaliyamari, accused / appellant Sughan Singh

Naverji (A-7) being Block Education Officer and accused / appellant

Jitendra Kumar Nayak (A-8) being Assistant Block Education

Officer, were involved in concealing the evidence, threatening the

victims and also committing the offence of extortion, and thereby

committed the offence. It is also the case of the prosecution that on

4-1-2013, the District Collector, North Bastar Kanker received a

complaint regarding harassment and physical misbehaviour with

the minor girls aged about 7-11 years who were residing at

Jhaliyamari Ashram and the District Collector in order to have

investigation of the said complaint constituted a team consisting of

one Ms. Shail Thakur (PW-42), Women & Child Development

Officer and Ms. Anju Nayak, Assistant Director, Public Relations for

conducting investigation over the said complaint and for submitting

report immediately. Thereafter, on 5-1-2013, both the officers

reached the hostel where the girl victims were residing and

recorded their statements during which the girl victims (14 in

number) informed that A-1 & A-2 used to switch off the lights of the

Ashram and would take off their clothes and would conduct

indecent and inappropriate act one by one. It was further informed

by the girl victims that the aforesaid incident was happening since

1½ years prior to August, 2012. The two officers after conducting

detailed enquiry, submitted enquiry report Ex.P-130 to the higher

authority based on which and also based on the report lodged by

Ms. Shail Thakur (PW-42), District Programme Officer, the offence

was registered being Crime No.3/2013 under Sections 376(2)(b) & 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 9 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

34 of the IPC vide FIR Ex.P-132 and further, considering that the

minor victims belong to Scheduled Tribe, the case diary was

handed-over to ST Wing Investigating Officer Reena Neelam Kujur

(PW-66) for conducting investigation. On 6-1-2013, the

Investigating Officer reached Jhaliyamari Ashram and prepared

spot map of the place of incident vide Ex.P-207 and recorded the

statements of Ms. Shail Thakur (PW-42) and 14 girl victims.

Daakhil kharij register was seized vide Ex.P-208 and after obtaining

permission for conducting medical examination of the girl victims,

they were sent to Komal Dev Government Hospital, Kanker where

they were medically examined and vaginal slides of the girl victims

were also prepared. Vaginal slides of the girl victims were sent for

chemical examination to the FSL, Raipur and the FSL report is

Ex.P-152 in which stains of human sperm were found on the

vaginal slides (Articles H, I, K, L, M, R & S) of victims examined as

PW-11, PW-13, PW-15, PW-6, PW-18, PW-25 and one another

victim (not examined). On the same day, clothes of accused

Mannuram Goti (A-1) & Deenanath Nagesh (A-2) were also seized

and the accused persons were also sent for medical examination.

Medical examination of A-1 was conducted vide Ex.P-27 and he

was arrested vide Ex.P-210. On 8-1-2013, seven pieces of

mattresses bearing Articles I, J, K, L, M, N & O were seized from

the Ashram and registers produced by accused Babita Markam (A-

3), Hostel Superintendent, were seized and she was arrested vide

Ex.P-212. Other accused persons Sagar Katlam (A-4), Sukalu

Netam (A-5) & Lachhuram Salam (A-6) were also arrested vide 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 10 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

Exs.P-211, 213, 214, respectively. Thereafter, statements of the

girl victims were recorded before Silli Thomas (PW-61), Tahsildar &

Executive Magistrate, Narharpur vide Exs.P-176 to P-190 and their

caste certificates were seized vide Exs.P-118, P-121, P-125, P-28,

P-116, P-17, P-191 to P-195 & P-107 and case diary was handed-

over for investigation to Rama Patel (PW-68). Victims were

medically examined by Dr. (Smt.) K.L. Thakur (PW-53) who

conducted medical examination of the victim girls and prepared

report Exs.P-1, P-153 to P-165.

5.Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded under Section

161 of the CrPC and the appellants were charge-sheeted for the

aforesaid offences before the jurisdictional criminal court. The

appellants abjured the guilt and entered into defence. Their

defence was that they have not committed the offence and they

have been falsely implicated in the offences in question.

6.In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined

as many as 75 witnesses and exhibited 239 documents Exs.P-1 to

P-239. Articles A to T have been exhibited on behalf of the

prosecution. The defence has examined none, but exhibited 24

documents Exs.D-1 & D-24.

7.The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on

record, proceeded to convict and sentence all the accused /

appellants in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of

this judgment against which these six appeals have been preferred

by the appellants questioning their conviction and sentences.

8.Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for appellant 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 11 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

/ accused Mannuram Goti (A-1) in Cr.A.No.1223/2013, would

submit that he is confining his submission to the sentence awarded

to A-1 i.e. imprisonment for life, as he is in jail since 7-1-2013 and

he would submit that since at the time when the offence was

allegedly committed, the minimum sentence was ten years,

therefore, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter

of Thongam Tarun Singh v. State of Manipur

1

, he be sentenced

for the period already undergone by him by partly granting the

appeal.

9.Mr. H.S. Patel, learned counsel appearing for appellants / accused

Deenanath Nagesh (A-2) & Sukalu Netam (A-5) in Cr.A.

Nos.467/2015 & 1144 of 2013, respectively, would submit that he

would adopt the submission of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava and is

also confining his submission to the sentence awarded to A-2 i.e.

imprisonment for life, as he is in jail since 6-12-2012 and thereby

already completed more than ten years in jail, therefore, in view of

the decision of the Supreme Court in Thongam Tarun Singh

(supra), he be sentenced to the period already undergone by him

and his appeal be allowed in part. In respect of accused / appellant

Sukalu Netam (A-5), Mr. Patel would further submit that at the time

of alleged offence, A-5 was holding the post of Up-Sarpanch of the

village, where the offence is alleged to have taken place, as such,

his conviction for the aforesaid offences is not warranted to the

facts of the case and is liable to be set aside.

10.Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for appellant /

1(2019) 18 SCC 77 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 12 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

accused Babita Markam (A-3) in Cr.A.No.1237/2013, would submit

that A-3 being a woman and Hostel Superintendent of Adivasi

Kanya Ashram, Jhaliyamari, the trial Court is absolutely unjustified

in convicting her for offence under Section 376(2)(b) read with

clauses (c), (f), (g) read with Sections 34 & 35 read with Section

120B of the IPC in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme

Court in the matter of Priya Patel v. State of M.P. and another

2

.

He would further submit that conviction of A-3 for other offences i.e.

Sections 119, 201 & 506 of the IPC is not based on the evidence

available on record and it is liable to be set aside.

11.Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, learned counsel also appearing for

accused / appellants Sagar Katlam (A-4) & Jitendra Kumar Nayak

(A-8) in Cr.A.No.1115/2013, would submit that A-4 is Teacher of

another school and A-8 is Block Education Officer, A-4 has been

convicted for offences under Sections 201, 202 & 506 of the IPC,

whereas A-8 has been convicted under Sections 119, 201, 202 &

384 of the IPC, as such, no offence under Sections 384, 201 & 202

of the IPC is made out against them, even there is no evidence of

contacting these accused by A-1 & A-2, therefore, these accused

are liable to be acquitted. In alternative, he would also submit that

these accused remained in jail for a period of more than 1½ years

i.e. from 20-10-2013 to 15-7-2014, therefore, they also be

sentenced to the period already undergone by them.

12.Mr. Arvind Sinha, learned counsel appearing for accused /

appellant Lachhuram Salam (A-6) in Cr.A.No.1175/2013, would

2(2006) 6 SCC 263 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 13 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

submit that A-6 was villager of the village where the offence took

place, as such, his conviction for the aforesaid offences is not

warranted in the facts of the case and is liable to be set aside.

13.Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, learned counsel appearing for accused /

appellant Sughan Singh Naverji (A-7), would submit that at the time

of alleged offence, A-7 was holding the post of Assistant Block

Education Officer, he was newly posted at the time offence and

immediately after coming to know about the offence, he informed

the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare vide Ex.P-141, as such,

he has taken due care even without receiving any complaint of the

matter and therefore his conviction for the aforesaid offences is not

warranted in the facts of the case and is liable to be set aside.

14.Per contra, Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for

the State / respondent, would submit as under: -

1.A-1 & A-2 are the main authors of the crime, they have

committed gang rape for a span of 1½ years repeatedly with

the 14 girl victims and there is sufficient evidence in shape of

oral testimony of victims (PWs 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19,

22, 24, 25, 27 & 28), in addition to that, there is medical

evidence of Dr. (Smt.) K.L. Thakur (PW-53) who has proved

the medical reports Exs.P-1, P-153 to P-165 and further, in

the FSL report Ex.P-152, stains of human sperm were found

on the vaginal slides (Articles H, I, K, L, M, R & S) of victims

PW-11, PW-13, PW-15, PW-6, PW-18, PW-25 and one

another victim (not examined). As such, conviction of A-1 &

A-2 are well merited and not liable to interfered with. The 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 14 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

manner in which these two accused / appellants have

committed sexual intercourse with the minor victims for a

period of 1½ years repeatedly, life sentence awarded to them

is just and proper and is not liable to be reduced and as such,

appeals of A-1 & A-2 deserve to be dismissed.

2.With regard to A-3, it is submitted that she being a member of

the Ashram and in-charge of the Hostel, she was immediately

informed by the victims as per their statements, but she did

not take any action except assuring the victims that higher

authorities will be informed and necessary action will be taken

against them, and as such, she has rightly been held guilty

for the offences in question, as the 14 girl victims have

supported the case of the prosecution and therefore her

appeal also deserves to be dismissed.

3.Coming to the submissions made on behalf of A-4 to A-8,

learned State counsel would submit that they have also

rightly been found guilty for offences under Sections 119,

201, 202, 506 & 384 of the IPC and considering the manner

in which the offence has been committed against the 14 girl

victims who belong to the category of Scheduled Tribe, their

appeals also deserve to be dismissed and no interference is

warranted.

15.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their

rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the

record with utmost circumspection.

16.For the sake of convenience and considering the nature of 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 15 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

evidence available against the accused persons / appellants, we

will consider the cases of all the accused/appellants one by one

and the case of A-1 & A-2 together.

Mannuram Goti (A-1) & Deenanath Nagesh (A-2)

17.Mannuram Goti (A-1) has been convicted for offence under

Sections 450 & 376(2)(g) read with clauses (b), (c), (f) read with

Section 120B of the IPC for committing rape against victims No.1 to

12 & 15 and he has been sentenced to undergo RI for ten years

and life imprisonment ten times on each count, respectively. He

has further been convicted under Section 354 of the IPC qua

victims No.13 & 14 and sentenced to undergo RI for three years

two times on each count. He also also been convicted under

Sections 119 & 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five

years and three years, respectively. Punishment under Sections

119 & 201 of the IPC have been directed to run concurrently,

however, remaining sentences were directed to run consecutively

which has been called in question.

18.Similarly, Deenanath Nagesh (A-2) has been convicted for offence

under Sections 450 & 376(2)(g) read with clauses (b), (c), (f) read

with Section 120B of the IPC for committing rape against victims

No.2 to 5, 7, 9 & 10 and he has been sentenced to undergo RI for

ten years and life imprisonment seven times on each count,

respectively. He has further been convicted under Section 354 of

the IPC qua victims No.13 & 14 and sentenced to undergo RI for

three years two times on each count. He also also been convicted

under Sections 119 & 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 16 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

for five years and three years, respectively. Punishment under

Sections 119 & 201 of the IPC have been directed to run

concurrently, however, remaining sentences were directed to run

consecutively which has also been called in question.

19.The trial Court has convicted A-1 & A-2 principally on the testimony

of the 14 girl victims in which they have clearly stated that 1½ years

prior to 12-8-2012, A-1 & A-2 have assaulted them sexually which

is supported by medical evidence Exs.P-1, P-153 to P-165 which

has been proved by Dr. (Smt.) K.L. Thakur (PW-53) and further

relied upon the FSL report Ex.P-152 in which stains of human

sperm were found on the vaginal slides (Articles H, I, K, L, M, R &

S) of victims examined as PW-11, PW-13, PW-15, PW-6, PW-18,

PW-25 and one another victim (not examined).

20.We have gone through the statements of the victims in which they

have categorically supported the case of the prosecution and

victims No.13 & 14 being PW-27 & PW-28 have clearly stated that

A-1 & A-2 have outraged their modesty, and victims No.1 to 12

(PWs 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24 & 25) have stated that

A-1 has sexually assaulted them, and victims No.2 to 5, 7, 9 & 10

(PWs 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, 19 & 22) have stated that A-2 has sexually

assaulted them. Furthermore, Dr. (Smt.) K.L. Thakur (PW-53), who

has conducted medical examination of the girl victims, has also

supported the case of the prosecution and has proved the medical

reports. More particularly, FSL report Ex.P-152 shows that vaginal

slides of victims were found to be stained with human sperm. As

such, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 17 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

the trial Court holding A-1 guilty for offence under Section 376(2)(g)

read with clauses (b), (c), (f) read with Section 120B of the IPC

against victims No.1 to 12 & 15 stands established and for offence

under Section 354 of the IPC against victims No.13 & 14 also

stands established. Even otherwise, conviction of A-1 has not been

questioned, but in view of oral and documentary evidence available

on record, we find that conviction of A-1 is well founded and we find

no reason to interfere with the same and we accordingly, affirm the

said finding. Similarly, A-1 being a public servant, finding of the trial

Court that he is also guilty for offence under Sections 119 & 201 of

the IPC is also well merited and we do not find any good ground to

interfere in the said finding and we accordingly, hereby affirm the

said finding. We also do not find any good ground to interfere with

the finding of the trial Court qua Section 450 of the IPC against A-1

and we hereby affirm the said finding.

21.Similarly, we are also of the considered opinion that the finding

recorded by the trial Court holding A-2 guilty for offence under

Section 376(2)(g) read with clauses (b), (c), (f) read with Section

120B of the IPC against victims No.2 to 5, 7, 9 & 10 (PWs 6, 8, 11,

13, 16, 19 & 22) stands established and for offence under Section

354 of the IPC against victims No.13 & 14 also stands established.

Even otherwise, conviction of A-2 has also not been questioned,

but in view of oral and documentary evidence available on record,

we find that conviction of A-2 is also well founded and we find no

reason to interfere with the same and we accordingly, affirm the

said finding. Similarly, A-2 being a public servant, finding of the trial 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 18 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

Court that he is also guilty for offence under Sections 119 & 201 of

the IPC is also well merited and we do not find any good ground to

interfere in the said finding and we accordingly, hereby affirm the

said finding. We also do not find any good ground to interfere with

the finding of the trial Court qua Section 450 of the IPC against A-2

and we hereby affirm the said finding.

22.At this stage, the submission of learned counsel for A-1 & A-2 that

since the date of offence is 1½ years prior to August, 2012 and

Section 376 of the IPC was amended with effect from 3-2-2013

needs to be noted. Prior to amendment with effect from 3-2-2013,

minimum sentence for the offence of committing gang rape was ten

years which may be extendable up to life and which shall also be

liable to fine, even for adequate and specific reasons to be

mentioned in the judgment, the court is empowered to impose a

sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less

than ten years. Therefore, A-1 & A-2 be sentenced to the period

already undergone by them as they are in jail since 7-1-2013 and 6-

12-2012, respectively. Reliance has been placed on the decision of

the Supreme Court in Thongam Tarun Singh (supra) in which their

Lordships have held in paragraph 11 as under: -

“11.So far as quantum of sentence is concerned,

Section 376 IPC punishment for rape has been amended

by Act 13 of 2013 (with retrospective effect from 3-2-

2013). As per the amended section, the minimum

sentence of seven years is provided for the offence of

rape which may extend to imprisonment for life. After the

amendment, no discretion is vested with the Court to

reduce the sentence. Prior to the amendment

(Amendment Act 13 of 2013) for the punishment under

Section 376(2)(g) IPC, it provided for rigorous 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 19 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten

years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to

fine. Prior to the amendment (Amendment Act 13 of

2013) by the proviso to Section 376(2) IPC, the Court

has been vested with the discretion that for adequate

and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, to

impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description

for a term of less than ten years.”

23.True it is that Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC suffered amendment with

effect from 3-2-2013 and prior to amendment, minimum sentence

prescribed for gang rape was ten years and even for adequate and

special reasons, less than 10 years sentence can be awarded.

24.Reverting to the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that A-1 at the

relevant point of time was posted as Teacher in the said Ashram

where the victims were residing as hostelers and A-2 was Security

Guard. As Teacher and public servant, A-1 was given the

responsibility to teach good habits and behaviour to the girls /

victims staying in the Ashram and also to enhance their awareness,

knowledge, intellect, etc., so that they may emerge as good citizens

and go ahead in their professional life, but in breach of such duty

which was entrusted by the Government to A-1, he has completely

acted in total breach of his duty and committed sexual assault not

only on one, but on as many as 12 victims / minor girls and

outraged the modesty of two minor girls which in our opinion is

extremely serious and shocks the conscience of this Court.

Moreover, A-1 has concealed the evidence which goes to show that

he is not a person to whom any leniency be shown in awarding

sentence by reducing the sentence. As such, we are not even little

bit inclined to alter the sentence either to the period already 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 20 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

undergone or to the minimum sentence prescribed under Section

376(2) of the IPC as existed prior to amendment. Similarly, the

duty entrusted to A-2 was to safeguard and protect the minor girls

staying in the hostel physically, but contrary to that, he did not

protect them physically from any assault which was likely to be

made against them, but, otherwise, he himself has sexually

assaulted seven girl victims and outraged the modesty of two girls

and did not report the matter to the police, on the other hand,

concealed the evidence which goes to show that he is not a person

to be shown any leniency in awarding sentence by reducing the

sentence. Accordingly, the sentences awarded to A-1 & A-2 for all

the charged offences are hereby affirmed.

25.Now, it is next contended by Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava & Mr. H.S.

Patel, learned counsel appearing for A-1 & A-2, respectively, that

A-1 has been sentenced to life imprisonment 12 times, whereas A-

2 has been sentenced to life imprisonment seven times and both

have been convicted for offences under Sections 450, 376(2)(g)

read with clauses (b), (c), (f) read with Section 120B, 354, 119 &

201 of the IPC, and except sentences under Sections 119 & 201 of

the IPC, all sentences have been directed to run consecutively

which is apparently contrary to the well settled law in this behalf

and learned counsels would rely upon the Constitution Bench

decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Muthuramalingam

and others v. State represented by Inspector of Police

3

to

buttress their submission and would submit that while multiple

sentences for imprisonment for life can be awarded for multiple

3(2016) 8 SCC 313 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 21 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

murders or other offences punishable with imprisonment for life,

however, the life sentences so awarded cannot be directed to run

consecutively and therefore that part of the order be set aside.

26.We find force in this submission of learned counsels for A-1 & A-2.

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Muthuramalingam

(supra) have formulated following question in paragraph 1 of the

report regarding, “Whether consecutive life sentences can be

awarded to a convict on being found guilty of a series of murders

for which he has been tried in a single trial?”, and their Lordships

considered the issue and pertinently answered the question in

paragraphs 34 & 35 as under: -

“34.In conclusion our answer to the question is in the

negative. We hold that while multiple sentences for

imprisonment for life can be awarded for multiple

murders or other offences punishable with imprisonment

for life, the life sentences so awarded cannot be directed

to run consecutively. Such sentences would, however,

be superimposed over each other so that any remission

or commutation granted by the competent authority in

one does not ipso facto result in remission of the

sentence awarded to the prisoner for the other.

35.We may, while parting, deal with yet another

dimension of this case argued before us namely whether

the court can direct life sentence and term sentences to

run consecutively. That aspect was argued keeping in

view the fact that the appellants have been sentenced to

imprisonment for different terms apart from being

awarded imprisonment for life. The trial court’s direction

affirmed by the High Court is that the said term

sentences shall run consecutively. It was contended on

behalf of the appellants that even this part of the

direction is not legally sound, for once the prisoner is

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, the term

sentence awarded to him must run concurrently. We do

not, however, think so. The power of the court to direct

the order in which sentences will run is unquestionable in 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 22 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

view of the language employed in Section 31 CrPC. The

court can, therefore, legitimately direct that the prisoner

shall first undergo the term sentence before the

commencement of his life sentence. Such a direction

shall be perfectly legitimate and in tune with Section 31

CrPC. The converse however may not be true for if the

court directs the life sentence to start first it would

necessarily imply that the term sentence would run

concurrently. That is because once the prisoner spends

his life in jail, there is no question of his undergoing any

further sentence. Whether or not the direction of the

court below calls for any modification or alteration is a

matter with which we are not concerned. The regular

Bench hearing the appeals would be free to deal with

that aspect of the matter having regard to what we have

said in the foregoing paragraphs.”

27.The aforesaid conclusion of their Lordships would show that

multiple sentences for imprisonment for life can be awarded for

multiple murders or other offences punishable with imprisonment

for life, but the life sentences so awarded cannot be directed to run

consecutively, however, such sentences would be superimposed

over each other for the purposes of any remission or commutation.

Accordingly, though it is permissible that first term sentence would

undergo and thereafter life sentence would undergo, but

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the

considered opinion that ends of justice would be served if all the life

sentences would run concurrently along with term sentences

awarded to A-1 & A-2 for offence under Sections 450, 354, 119 &

201 of the IPC. It is ordered accordingly. We accordingly modify

the running of sentences as awarded by the trial Court and it is

modified accordingly. As such, the appeals of Mannuram Goti (A-

1) & Deenanath Nagesh (A-2) are dismissed accordingly, subject to

modification in running of sentences, as directed herein-above. 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 23 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

B abita Markam (A-3)

28.Babita Markam (A-3) has been convicted for offence under Section

376(2)(b) read with clauses (c), (f), (g) read with Sections 34 & 35

read with Section 120B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life

imprisonment. She has further been convicted convicted under

Sections 119 & 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five

years and three years, respectively. She has also been convicted

under Section 506 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one

year.

29.Admittedly, at the time of offence, A-3 was working as Hostel

Superintendent in Adivasi Kanya Ashram, Jhaliyamari, where the

offence took place and where the offence was committed by A-1 &

A-2. As per the deposition of victims No.13 & 14 (PWs 27 & 28),

this accused allowed A-1 & A-2 to sleep near the Ashram.

Admittedly, she is a woman officer working as Hostel

Superintendent at the time when the offence was committed. The

question as to whether a woman officer can be prosecuted for the

offence of gang rape came up for consideration before the

Supreme Court in Priya Patel (supra) in which question was

framed by their Lordships in paragraph 2 of the report that, “Can a

lady be prosecuted for gang rape is the interesting question

involved in this appeal”. Their Lordships after due consideration

held that a woman cannot be said to have an intention to commit

rape and a woman cannot be prosecuted for alleged commission of

the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC, and

observed as under in paragraphs 8 & 9 of the report: - 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 24 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

“8.A bare reading of Section 375 makes the position

clear that rape can be committed only by a man. The

section itself provides as to when a man can be said to

have committed rape. Section 376(2) makes certain

categories of serious cases of rape as enumerated

therein attract more severe punishment. One of them

relates to "gang rape". The language of sub-section (2)

(g) provides that whoever commits “gang rape” shall be

punished, etc. The Explanation only clarifies that when a

woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons

acting in furtherance of their common intention, each

such person shall be deemed to have committed gang

rape within this sub-section (2). That cannot make a

woman guilty of committing rape. This is conceptually

inconceivable. The Explanation only indicates that when

one or more persons act in furtherance of their common

intention to rape a woman, each person of the group

shall be deemed to have committed gang rape. By

operation of the deeming provision, a person who has

not actually committed rape is deemed to have

committed rape even if only one of the group in

furtherance of the common intention has committed rape.

"Common intention" is dealt with in Section 34 IPC and

provides that when a criminal act is done by several

persons in furtherance of the common intention of all,

each of such persons is liable for that act in the same

manner as if it was done by him alone. "Common

intention" denotes action in concert and necessarily

postulates a pre-arranged plan, a prior meeting of minds

and an element of participation in action. The acts may

be different and vary in character, but must be actuated

by the same common intention, which is different from

the same intention or similar intention. The sine qua non

for bringing in application of Section 34 IPC that the act

must be done in furtherance of the common intention to

do a criminal act. The expression "in furtherance of their

common intention" as appearing in the Explanation to

Section 376(2) relates to the intention to commit rape. A

woman cannot be said to have an intention to commit

rape. Therefore, the counsel for the appellant is right in

her submission that the appellant cannot be prosecuted

for alleged commission of the offence punishable under

Section 376(2)(g).

9.The residual question is whether she can be

charged for abetment. This is an aspect which has not 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 25 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

been dealt with by the trial court or the High Court. If in

law, it is permissible and the facts warrant such a course

to be adopted, it is for the court concerned to act in

accordance with law. We express no opinion in that

regard.”

30.In view of the authoritative pronouncement by their Lordships of

the Supreme Court holding that woman cannot be prosecuted for

offence under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC, we hereby set aside the

conviction of Babita Markam (A-3) for offence under Section 376(2)

(b) of the IPC. Accordingly, conviction of A-3 for offence under

Section 376(2)(b) read with clauses (c), (f), (g) read with Sections

34 & 35 read with Section 120B of the IPC is hereby set aside and

she is acquitted of the said charge.

31.A-3 has also been convicted under Sections 119, 201 & 506 of the

IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years, three years and

one year, respectively. She has been convicted basically on the

basis of testimony of the girl victims – PW-3, PW-6, PW-8, PW-11,

PW-13, PW-15, PW-16, PW-18, PW-19, PW-22, PW-24, PW-25,

PW-27 & PW-28, who have categorically stated that A-3 was

informed about the incident and the crime committed by A-1 & A-2

was within her knowledge, yet, no offence was registered or no

action was taken on the complaint and furthermore, statement of

Pilaram (PW-43) also proves that A-3 had knowledge of the crime.

Similarly, FIR was lodged by Ms. Shail Thakur (PW-42), District

Programme Officer after conducting enquiry which goes to show

that A-3 did not take any action even when she was categorically

informed by the victims and kept the matter pending and thus, tried

to conceal the evidence knowing fully well that offence has been 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 26 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

committed against the girl victims. As such, conviction of A-3 under

Sections 119 & 201 of the IPC is well merited and we find no good

ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the trial Court

convicting her under Sections 119 & 201 of the IPC. However,

finding no evidence with regard to conviction of A-3 under Section

506 of the IPC, we set aside the finding recorded by the trial Court

convicting her for offence under Section 506 of the IPC and she is

acquitted of the said charge. Even otherwise, so far as A-3 is

concerned, there is no evidence of hatching conspiracy with the

other co-accused. Since A-3 had already suffered sentences for

offences under Sections 119 & 201 of the IPC, we direct that she

be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Sagar Katlam (A-4)

32.Sagar Katlam (A-4) has been convicted for offence under Sections

201 & 202 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years

and six months, respectively. He has also been convicted under

Section 506 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year.

He is Teacher in the Adivasi Kanya Ashram, Jhaliyamari and has

been convicted based on his conduct of screening the offenders

from lawful action and being aware of the incident of commission of

crime against the minor girl victims, yet, he failed to lodge any

report to the police authorities. His conviction is supported by the

statements of the girl victims which also shows that the incident

was within the knowledge of A-4 and he failed to discharge his role

as per Section 40 of the CrPC. As such, A-4 being aware of the

commission of offence did take any appropriate steps and failed to 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 27 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

discharge his duty. Consequently, conviction of A-4 under Sections

201 & 202 of the IPC is well merited and we do not find any good

ground to interfere with the said finding recorded by the trial Court.

Accoridngly, his conviction under Sections 201 & 202 of the IPC is

hereby affirmed. However, finding no evidence with regard to

conviction of A-4 under Section 506 of the IPC, we set aside the

finding recorded by the trial Court convicting him for offence under

Section 506 of the IPC and he is acquitted of the said charge. A-4

was in jail from 8-1-2013 i.e. the date of his arrest to at least till 17-

7-2014 when he was granted bail by this Court and released on 17-

7-2014, thereby he remained in jail for a period of 1 year 6 months

4 days. We award the sentence of the period already undergone

by him i.e. 1 year 6 months 4 days for offences under Sections 201

& 202 of the IPC. He is already on bail. He need not surrender.

However, his bail bonds will remain in operation for a period of six

months in view of Section 437-A of the CrPC.

S ukalu Netam (A-5) & Lachhuram Salam (A-6)

33.Both Sukalu Netam (A-5) & Lachhuram Salam (A-6) have been

convicted for offence under Sections 201 & 384 read with Section

506 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and

two years, respectively.

34.Sukalu Netam (A-5) has been convicted based on the testimonies

of victims No.1 (PW-3), No.2 (PW-6), No.3 (PW-8), No.4 (PW-11),

No.5 (PW-13), No.7 (PW-16), No.9 (PW-19) and No.10 (PW-22),

who have categorically stated that he had threatened them with life

and told them not to disclose about the incident to anyone. 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 28 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

Similarly, Lachhuram Salam (A-6) has been convicted based on the

testimonies of victims No.1 (PW-3), No.2 (PW-6) and No.3 (PW-8),

who have categorically stated that he had threatened them with life

and told them not to disclose about the incident to anyone.

However, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter

of R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay and another

4

and in view of the

definition of “Extortion” contained in Section 383 of the IPC which is

punishable under 384 of the IPC and further, in view of the decision

of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Chandra v. State of

U.P.

5

, we are of the considered opinion that no offence under

Section 384 as well as 506 of the IPC is established against A-5

and A-6, however, we find that there is sufficient evidence available

on record to convict them under Section 201 of the IPC.

Accordingly, conviction of A-5 & A-6 under Section 384 read with

Section 506 of the IPC is set aside and they are acquitted of the

said charge, however, their conviction under Section 201 of the IPC

is hereby affirmed. Since they were in jail from 8-1-2013 to 15-7-

2014, thereby already suffered the sentence of 1 year 6 months 4

days, we award the sentence of the period already undergone by

them i.e. 1 year 6 months 4 days for offence under Section 201 of

the IPC. They are already on bail. They need not surrender.

However, their bail bonds will remain in operation for a period of six

months in view of Section 437-A of the CrPC.

S u ghan Singh Naverji (A- 7 ) & Jitendra Kumar Nayak (A- 8 )

35.Both Sughan Singh Naverji (A-7) & Jitendra Kumar Nayak (A-8)

4AIR 1986 SC 2045

5AIR 1957 SC 381 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 29 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

have been convicted for offences under Sections 119, 201, 202 &

384 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years, three

years, six months and two years, respectively. A-7 – Block

Education Officer & A-8 – Assistant Block Education Officer have

been convicted for their conduct of not reporting the incident even

after knowing about the same as per Ex.P-14. Their role has been

established by Pilaram (PW-43), Ishwar (PW-44) and Yashwant

(PW-60). Further, victims No.1 (PW-3) and No.3 (PW-8), both,

have stated that both these accused (A-7 & A-8) had threatened

them not to disclose about the incident to anyone. However, in

view of the decision of the Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak (supra)

and in view of the definition of “Extortion” contained in Section 383

of the IPC which is punishable under 384 of the IPC and further, in

view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Chandra

(supra), we are of the considered opinion that no offence under

Section 384 of the IPC is established against A-7 and A-8,

however, we find that there is sufficient evidence available on

record to convict them under Sections 119, 201 & 202 of the IPC.

Accordingly, conviction of A-7 & A-8 under Section 384 of the IPC

is set aside and they are acquitted of the said charge, however,

their conviction under Sections 119, 201 & 202 of the IPC being

well merited is hereby affirmed. Since they remained in jail from

13-1-2013 to 15-7-2014, thereby already suffered the sentence of 1

year 6 months 4 days, we award the sentence of the period already

undergone by them i.e. 1 year 6 months 4 days for offences under

Sections 119, 201 & 202 of the IPC. They are already on bail. 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation

Page 30 of 30

(Cr.A.No.1223/2013, 467/2015, 1237/2013, 1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013)

They need not surrender. However, their bail bonds will remain in

operation for a period of six months in view of Section 437-A of the

CrPC.

36.In conclusion, the appeals of A-1 & A-2 being Cr.A. Nos.1223/2013

& 467/2015 are dismissed with modification in running of their

sentences awarded by the trial Court. However, the appeal of A-3

being Cr.A. No.1237/2013 is partly allowed by acquitting her of the

charges under Section 376(2)(b) read with clauses (c), (f), (g) read

with Sections 34 & 35 read with Section 120B of the IPC and

Section 506 of the IPC. The appeals of A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 & A-8

being Cr.A.Nos.1115/2013, 1144/2013 & 1175/2013 are also partly

allowed by sentencing them to the period already undergone by

them by maintaining their conviction for offences under Sections

201 & 202 of the IPC in respect of A-4, Section 201 of the IPC in

respect of A-5 & A-6 both and Sections 119, 201 & 202 of the IPC

in respect of A-7 & A-8 both.

37.Accordingly, all the appeals stand finally disposed of.

38.Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record

be transmitted to the trial Court concerned for necessary

information and action, if any.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Singh Chandel)

Judge Judge

Soma 2023:CGHC:12291-DB

Neutral Citation